Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by listing the fields returned (outbound url, creator, tags, popularity/recency signals), but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description could be more explicit about side effects and response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core function and key return fields without unnecessary words. It is concise yet informative, earning its place entirely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return content by naming specific fields. It doesn't mention errors or return format, but for a simple get-by-id tool, the core information is present. Slightly lacking in explicit return structure, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema contains one required 'id' string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that the id refers to a listing ID, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide details on id format, source, or validation, so the addition is minimal and only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is specific and clear: 'Get full detail for one listing by id' uses a strong verb and resource, and enumerates included fields (outbound url, creator, tags, popularity/recency signals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_indie, which focus on searching rather than retrieving a single known listing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by id' clearly implies the tool should be used when a specific listing identifier is known and full details are needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like search_indie or when not to use, the context is clear for a get-by-id operation. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, but the usage context is reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.